A concern about rogue's role in dungeons. Overall need for all classes to have desirability.

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

PlagueMonk

As a specific example, I recall an early video of them doing a dungeon and there was a poison gas area that needed to be cleared and only one class could do that (might have been the Cleric which doesn't help the argument but....)

That being said, while having one of everyone might be optimal, there is nothing stopping you from having a sub optimal group. So you don't have a tank? Well then you might just have to DPS things down. No Rogue to trap find? You might have to just trigger them and heal through it, etc.

There is also the possibility that secondaries will allow you to perform some of that classes utilities. So a X/Rogue might be able to disarm traps but still can't see hidden doors.

Also there might be come classes like the Bard that maybe don't have a "utility" ability because the whole class is one, making a group as a whole much better.

Warth

nidriks wrote: »

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

He answered this question during the follow up AMA that this got brought up a. I don't think Asmogold actually talked to him about it:

All classes will have unique utility skills. He also stated the Rangers will have the ability to track. We know that tanks can summon physical walls (more of PvP thing than PvE). We will have to wait to know the other ones but the intent is balance groups of 8s so that the group has atleast one of each.

Hmm, well, if the intent is balanced groups of the 8 primaries then I think I've found something I really don't like.

Imagine EQ if every group was Warrior, Rogue, Enchanter, Cleric, Wizard and Ranger. Imagine WoW if every group was Warrior, Priest, Mage, Warlock, Hunter and Rogue. MMOs are best when there is variety.

I loved the groups in EQ when we couldn't find a cleric, so we had a druid or shaman healing. No magic user? That's fine, the druid can dps.

I hope things are a work in progress (okay, I know they probably are), because until level 25, when there is a branching of classes, I can see things being staler than I had hoped.

I suspect the groups of 8 is pretty much set in stone by now. To be fair, I knew about it when I backed Ashes, but things do change. I never got that an intent was to try and balance around all 8 primaries.Something will be meta, them trying to achieve one primary per class being meta certainly isn't a bad thing

I must remain patient though.

Your EQ/WoW example doesn't really fit, as neither of them has 8 subclasses with 4 flavors per subclass.

You have to balance around a comp, no way leads around that. One of each primary is the only one that makes sense.

Also, something being "optimal" doesn't mean its required. The same way 30 Mages/Warriors were optimal in a classic raid, that didnt mean you need to build it that way

Atama

Phrequency wrote: »

I'm more worried about a rogues role in castle sieges

It would be cool if they could sabotage siege engines as defenders or sneak in to sabotage defenses as attackers.

Adaon

Class desirability is definitely a concern and meaningful utility, the most recent mmo I've played(WoW) for any major extent certainly had "aspects" of desirability and utility in certain classes, but I never found them quite as impactful as the utility classes had in a game like Everquest. Spirit of the wolf from druids, portals from wizards, conjured items from magicians, mana regen from enchanters, corpse recovery abilities from classes like necromancer/clerics, resurrection to avoid huge experience gain hits, at least my own memory - has me thinking back on a multitude of invaluable things classes could bring to the table, many of which did earn you money, or increased desirability in a group. WoW on the flipside - yeah it was convenient to get a portal from a mage, but ultimately it was a minor inconvenience that later on was all but eliminated, or having a bit of extra stamina or intelligence, sure - it's great, but that was never as impactful as SoW, or Breeze(or whatever it was).

I would definitely like to see how they plan to give each class a meaningful utility that fits with the themes(or if they even do), rogues thematic utility I think is something that tends to get emphasized in many games simply because it's a bit of a no brainer, lock picking, trap detection, etc - they're kind of a staple, it did sound like they intended to give each class its own utility and desirability, but until seeing what's planned, hard to weigh in meaningfully about it(which is fine by me), so long as the desired outcome is met eventually.

Edit: I really don't want to know every minute detail about the game, or painstakingly research exactly what augments I want, or any of that stuff before the game goes live, as long as they deliver - I'll be happy, when I can see the end of the path before I even start the journey, I lose interest fast, and some games do an utterly terrible job of having depth or immersion. The problem though with my line of thinking is that - there are only so many paths, and once we've traveled down them, we can't help but see the ending, which makes newer journeys harder to enjoy, I wouldn't even say this is nostalgia, just reality, like I'm never expecting any chemical highs from gaming again haha, but I'll settle for a well executed experience(which seems like a lot to ask these days).

nidriks

Adaon wrote: »

Class desirability is definitely a concern and meaningful utility, the most recent mmo I've played(WoW) for any major extent certainly had "aspects" of desirability and utility in certain classes, but I never found them quite as impactful as the utility classes had in a game like Everquest. Spirit of the wolf from druids, portals from wizards, conjured items from magicians, mana regen from enchanters, corpse recovery abilities from classes like necromancer/clerics, resurrection to avoid huge experience gain hits, at least my own memory - has me thinking back on a multitude of invaluable things classes could bring to the table, many of which did earn you money, or increased desirability in a group. WoW on the flipside - yeah it was convenient to get a portal from a mage, but ultimately it was a minor inconvenience that later on was all but eliminated, or having a bit of extra stamina or intelligence, sure - it's great, but that was never as impactful as SoW, or Breeze(or whatever it was).

I would definitely like to see how they plan to give each class a meaningful utility that fits with the themes(or if they even do), rogues thematic utility I think is something that tends to get emphasized in many games simply because it's a bit of a no brainer, lock picking, trap detection, etc - they're kind of a staple, it did sound like they intended to give each class its own utility and desirability, but until seeing what's planned, hard to weigh in meaningfully about it(which is fine by me), so long as the desired outcome is met eventually.

Edit: I really don't want to know every minute detail about the game, or painstakingly research exactly what augments I want, or any of that stuff before the game goes live, as long as they deliver - I'll be happy, when I can see the end of the path before I even start the journey, I lose interest fast, and some games do an utterly terrible job of having depth or immersion. The problem though with my line of thinking is that - there are only so many paths, and once we've traveled down them, we can't help but see the ending, which makes newer journeys harder to enjoy, I wouldn't even say this is nostalgia, just reality, like I'm never expecting any chemical highs from gaming again haha, but I'll settle for a well executed experience(which seems like a lot to ask these days).

Enchanters had breeze and then clarity. C3 was a staple mass buff in Plane Of Knowledge. Having a 'chanter around for mana regen and mezzing made xping so much easier.

I started with druid and made a lot of money porting people about. Just don't bind yourself in the entry way in Naggy's lair to port people home...well not if you forget to rebind. That is a painful memory. Died the next day and found myself face to face with a lot of fire giants.

I actually don't think it would hurt the game if one class was able to have some sort of port ability. As long as it doesn't take people to the most needed places for sieges. I see where Steven is coming from. There is no strict druid anyway, from what I see.

As for your last paragraph, well do I know how you feel. I haven't really watched the game for the last couple of years. I just tune in to the few things guildies have said in discord. Only back now because the Peon video had me. I followed Vanguard very closely after EQ. I couldn't live with another of those.

Adaon

nidriks wrote: »

Adaon wrote: »

Class desirability is definitely a concern and meaningful utility, the most recent mmo I've played(WoW) for any major extent certainly had "aspects" of desirability and utility in certain classes, but I never found them quite as impactful as the utility classes had in a game like Everquest. Spirit of the wolf from druids, portals from wizards, conjured items from magicians, mana regen from enchanters, corpse recovery abilities from classes like necromancer/clerics, resurrection to avoid huge experience gain hits, at least my own memory - has me thinking back on a multitude of invaluable things classes could bring to the table, many of which did earn you money, or increased desirability in a group. WoW on the flipside - yeah it was convenient to get a portal from a mage, but ultimately it was a minor inconvenience that later on was all but eliminated, or having a bit of extra stamina or intelligence, sure - it's great, but that was never as impactful as SoW, or Breeze(or whatever it was).

I would definitely like to see how they plan to give each class a meaningful utility that fits with the themes(or if they even do), rogues thematic utility I think is something that tends to get emphasized in many games simply because it's a bit of a no brainer, lock picking, trap detection, etc - they're kind of a staple, it did sound like they intended to give each class its own utility and desirability, but until seeing what's planned, hard to weigh in meaningfully about it(which is fine by me), so long as the desired outcome is met eventually.

Edit: I really don't want to know every minute detail about the game, or painstakingly research exactly what augments I want, or any of that stuff before the game goes live, as long as they deliver - I'll be happy, when I can see the end of the path before I even start the journey, I lose interest fast, and some games do an utterly terrible job of having depth or immersion. The problem though with my line of thinking is that - there are only so many paths, and once we've traveled down them, we can't help but see the ending, which makes newer journeys harder to enjoy, I wouldn't even say this is nostalgia, just reality, like I'm never expecting any chemical highs from gaming again haha, but I'll settle for a well executed experience(which seems like a lot to ask these days).

Enchanters had breeze and then clarity. C3 was a staple mass buff in Plane Of Knowledge. Having a 'chanter around for mana regen and mezzing made xping so much easier.

I started with druid and made a lot of money porting people about. Just don't bind yourself in the entry way in Naggy's lair to port people home...well not if you forget to rebind. That is a painful memory. Died the next day and found myself face to face with a lot of fire giants.

I actually don't think it would hurt the game if one class was able to have some sort of port ability. As long as it doesn't take people to the most needed places for sieges. I see where Steven is coming from. There is no strict druid anyway, from what I see.

As for your last paragraph, well do I know how you feel. I haven't really watched the game for the last couple of years. I just tune in to the few things guildies have said in discord. Only back now because the Peon video had me. I followed Vanguard very closely after EQ. I couldn't live with another of those.

Ooof yeah, Vanguard sounded so good - but that's one where it wasn't so much tuning - but polish that killed me. Having to mouse over tooltips to even tell which buff or debuff was which, I have vague memories of that being a bad experience for a lot of reasons. I was playing a Dread Knight haha.

Atama

Clarity was such a big deal in EQ that it was called “crack” and Enchanters would walk around areas as “crack dealers” giving people the buff for cash. I remember “will give plat for crack” shouts often in game (platinum coins were the highest currency and spellcasters were offering huge money just for a buff).

nidriks

Atama wrote: »

Clarity was such a big deal in EQ that it was called “crack” and Enchanters would walk around areas as “crack dealers” giving people the buff for cash. I remember “will give plat for crack” shouts often in game (platinum coins were the highest currency and spellcasters were offering huge money just for a buff).

Yeah, I'm still having counselling...

delghinn

find it interesting so many in the thread see the issue with one class being required for some feature of group content however readily accept that tanks and clerics are required with no viable substitutions

bloodprophet

These videos are form couple years ago at PAX. They show the class only abilities for the 4 classes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqtQ1eWxHPY

Hopefully they keep this and keep it per class and don't allow any mixing between classes.

Noaani

nidriks wrote: »

Cold 0ne FTB wrote: »

He answered this question during the follow up AMA that this got brought up a. I don't think Asmogold actually talked to him about it:

All classes will have unique utility skills. He also stated the Rangers will have the ability to track. We know that tanks can summon physical walls (more of PvP thing than PvE). We will have to wait to know the other ones but the intent is balance groups of 8s so that the group has atleast one of each.

Hmm, well, if the intent is balanced groups of the 8 primaries then I think I've found something I really don't like.

This is something I potentially agree with.

I'm planning on looking at how it works during alpha/beta, and if it seems like it could be restricting, my suggestion will be to make it so that players get the out of combat ability of both of their classes - meaning that a group would want to have someone in the group with each of the 8 primary classes somewhere in the mix.

This would open up group composition a whole lot.

nidriks

delghinn wrote: »

find it interesting so many in the thread see the issue with one class being required for some feature of group content however readily accept that tanks and clerics are required with no viable substitutions

You do?

Well, the fact with clerics and tanks is that thewre are usually alternatives to a class. Warriors, paladins, shadow knights, druids, shaman. You may also have noticed that I have said, either in this thread or elsewhere, that I believe Ashes should have alternatives to tank and cleric because those two seem to be the only main choice as tank or healer prior to 25.

Anyway, tank and healer are roles. We're clearly talking about extra abilities.

Anything else interesting to add?

Aardvark

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Early in DDO before the nerfs Raids had traps that only Rogues or part rogues could turn off and would 1 shot most classes. Int runes that only a Wizard would have enough int to get, CHA runes that only a Sorc should have enough for, str levers that only a barb or fighter should have enough for etc etc. Are you wanting a hard manditory like that?

nidriks

Aardvark wrote: »

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Early in DDO before the nerfs Raids had traps that only Rogues or part rogues could turn off and would 1 shot most classes. Int runes that only a Wizard would have enough int to get, CHA runes that only a Sorc should have enough for, str levers that only a barb or fighter should have enough for etc etc. Are you wanting a hard manditory like that?

I want alternatives. Whilst I am all for tough challenges I do realise that Ashes is just a game and having content be prohibitive can put people off. Whilst I want content that is a harkener to the MMOs of 15 years ago, I want Ashes to be successful.

I do want content that only rogues can handle, but I see no reason why a ranger or a fighter shouldn't have some skill to be able to have a crack at it.

The problem I see is I don't want special abilities that open new paths for dungeons to be a few clases only. I also don't want eight man groups to be forced to include one of each archetype. That will get dull fast.

Ideally I guess we could see a variety of paths be available throughout a dungeon but that there would be requirements to passing certain way. This is commonplace in games like Divinity: Original Sin with needing rogues/theives to pass a certain way. Perhaps if a group doesn't have a rogue then there could be a different route that might require a summoner pet to access.

There should be incentives to having a rogue and being able to access a certain boss, but it should prohibit groups without a rogue from getting vakue from a dungeon.

So, yes, include ideas such as you mentioned from DDO, but let's not restrict groups from getting anywhere. Let them get somewhere another way.

It's just thoughts that will likely change as we see more information from the game.

bloodprophet

Aardvark wrote: »

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Early in DDO before the nerfs Raids had traps that only Rogues or part rogues could turn off and would 1 shot most classes. Int runes that only a Wizard would have enough int to get, CHA runes that only a Sorc should have enough for, str levers that only a barb or fighter should have enough for etc etc. Are you wanting a hard manditory like that?

Yes please!

delghinn

bloodprophet wrote: »

Aardvark wrote: »

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

Early in DDO before the nerfs Raids had traps that only Rogues or part rogues could turn off and would 1 shot most classes. Int runes that only a Wizard would have enough int to get, CHA runes that only a Sorc should have enough for, str levers that only a barb or fighter should have enough for etc etc. Are you wanting a hard manditory like that?

Yes please!

that would hard lock people out of content until they can assemble a narrow focused specific group. perhaps to the extreme of requiring one of every class.

highly unlikely to be popular. would be better to have bonus things for having each of every class however in noway required to do the content.

bloodprophet

Or we accept the fact that not everyone will get to do everything.

Sendbackup

nidriks wrote: »

I am referring to the recent chatter about rogues having a special role in dungeons whereby they can detect traps and secret passages. I believe this was announced in Steven's interview with Asmongold.

First of all, I think it is a great idea, but I have some concerns.

I played Everquest 2 for some time, and I was invoilved in the game at the time SOE bought out the Shadow Odyssey expansion. I believe it was with this expansion, or perhaps the previous Rise Of Kunark, that bards took a very prominent role in the game. I remember shouting to do dungeon content in places like Guk with my conjuror. Bards were the thing though, and every group seemed to demand a bard, often at the expense of classes like the conjuror. It has been so long that I forget exactly why this was. Maybe it was actually the troubador that people wanted - the name of the bard after the class split.

Conjuror's were not always outright damage dealers in EQ2. They could be very powerful, but relied very much on their pet. With bards being so in demand, groups chose outright damage dealers over classes like conjuror. I got groups, I wasn't completely ignored, but it took longer than had bards not been so popular.

My question that springs from this is the following. If rogues are so useful, in that they can detect traps and find secret passages, what is going to make groups want the other classes? Will other classes have things they can do in dungeons that rogues can not do, and things that groups will want more than secret passages with secret bosses?

I know it is early days, but I'd hate to see a situation like the bard caused in EQ2 again. No class in an MMO should be given an ability that makes them more desirable in a dungeon than any other class.

I suppose the fact that there are eight primary archetypes means everyone can be included with the rogue, but I feel this needs discussing. How often are groups going to be made up of one of each primary archetype? There is likely to be situations such as need for off tanks or secondary healers. In that case, and if rogues became the ultimate desire, what is going to make people want the summoner who has been shouting for a group for 35 minutes?

Tl;dr: What can Intrepid do to make sure that all classes have a desired role in all settings? What can Intrepid do to make sure no one class gets the "EQ2 bard-effect" and becomes desired above all else, leaving poor utility classes left out on a whim?

Follow up question: What dungeon roles could other primary archetypes have? Tanks and clerics have their obvious necessary roles in dungeons, but what could summoners or rangers bring to the table that will make them just as good a choice as rogues in a dungeon replete with secrets? Will it come to be the thing that people pick rogue as secondary to make sure they can be wanted? I doubt it, to be honest, but I can't think of abilities for these two in a dungeon that would equal finding special places. Not off the top of my head anyway.

Disclaimer: I have complete faith in Intrepid over this. I'm not trying to stir up crap. This is theorycrafting, straight up.

I feel that you maybe over analysing this. We need to remember that in raids diversity is key.!

1 - You have to have a tank (depending on the size of raid, prob 2 or 3 tanks)

2 - You need healers (for a 40 man raid would expect somewhere around 4-5 healers)

3 - you always need a diversity of dps that are mixed ranged and melee.

In saying that, alot of mmo's ive played the melee are usually minimal to mitigate close quarters damage and potential healer mana sapping so they can focus on the tanks.

We have already seen that mages are going to be sort after in raids for their mana gifting of healers. I guess particularly in the early dungeons etc until mana pots etc are in good supply.

So I guess my point is there may only ever be 1 rogue in a raid because of just that one ability and then stacked with more than one of other classes. So, theoretically if rogues may lack sustained dps lets say as opposed to other classes, alot of rogues might be left out of raids altogether for the sack of only needing one for opening up additional rooms and passages! You just never know. What we need is to see the full work up of class and subclass abilities/buffs etc

delghinn

bloodprophet wrote: »

Or we accept the fact that not everyone will get to do everything.

2/3rds the trinity are met by 2 specific classes out of 8. so the vast majority of players would have at best limited access to group pve content that requires trinity group mechanics anyways.

cant imagine why so many of these games fade quickly after initial release

bloodprophet

delghinn wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Or we accept the fact that not everyone will get to do everything.

2/3rds the trinity are met by 2 specific classes out of 8. so the vast majority of players would have at best limited access to group pve content that requires trinity group mechanics anyways.

cant imagine why so many of these games fade quickly after initial release

Clearly you hate the trinity. What system would you suggest they use?

Child Item